Welcome to STop, the Seattle Times Opinion blog where our editorial writers and editors share their evolving thoughts on a variety of issues. STop is a place where opinion writers and readers can exchange views and readers can learn more about how editorial positions are formed.

The opinions you read below are those of the individual writers, not necessarily views that will become formal positions of The Seattle Times. Respond to STop(Please be aware that your name and comments may be published here, unless you specify otherwise).

Currently, STop cannot automatically post readers' comments on the blog. However, the editorial staff will regularly post readers' comments. Your comments are sent directly to the individual editor or writer.

John S. Fujii, the owner of the parking garage across Second Avenue from the Smith Tower, comments on my post about Kelo v. New London:

As owners of the Sinking Ship garage site at Second and Yesler, we, too, have a property rights appeal before the Washington State Supreme Court. In our case Monorail states they have no public use for the surplus site that is under dispute and the Washington consititution provides greater property rights protection than the US consitution. However, the tide of judicial deference toward the wishes of condemning agencies runs deep. The tide is showing signs of shifting ever so imperceptibly and we hope we are part of that shift later this year when the ruling is made. If not, we have had our day in court.

To clarify: Under the state constitution, the Monorail can take Fujii's property for a monorail station, because that is clearly a public use. Fujii's argument is that the Monorail needs only part of the property for that, and that he has a right to keep the rest of the parcel.

One of the precedents is a case involving the state convention center in Seattle. When the state wanted to expand the convention center, it condemned the land across Pine Street. It did not need the ground across the street, but air rights starting on the fourth floor. The owners of the ground sued, saying that they would sell the air rights but wanted to keep the ground rights. Justice Richard Sanders agreed with them, but the majority on the court sided with the state, which validates Fujii's statement about "judicial deference toward the wishes of condemning agencies."